The video below has former New Mexico governor Bill Richardson saying that Texas senator Ted Cruz shouldn't be a considered a real Hispanic.
Transcript, bolding added:

RICHARDSON: I'm not a fan [of Cruz]. I know he's sort of the Republican latest flavor. He's articulate. He seems to be charismatic, but I don't like his politics. I think he introduces a measure of incivility in the political process. Insulting people is not the way to go. But I guess he's a force in the Republican political system, but I'm not a fan.
INTERVIEWER: Do you think he represents most Hispanics?
RICHARDSON: No, no. He's anti-immigration, almost every Hispanic in the country wants to see immigration reform. No, I don't think he should be defined as a Hispanic. He's a politician from Texas, a conservative state. I respect Texas' choice but what I don't like is when you try to get things done it's OK to be strong and state your views, your ideology, but I've seen him demean the office, be rude to other senators, not be part of the civility that I think is really needed in Washington.

First, Richardson is (not unsurprisingly) lying. Ted Cruz isn't "anti-immigration" as Richardson claims; Cruz (as of right now) opposes granting citizenship to most illegal aliens in the U.S., but he's not opposed to legalizing them.
More importantly, Richardson underlines what I've been saying for a while about GOP Hispandering attempts: no matter how much they pander, the Democratic Party will be able to out-pander them. They'll do that through policy, but also by running those who are more echt (or will be portrayed as more echt) than the fronts that the GOP chooses. Cruz is half Cuban, one quarter Irish, and one quarter Italian. Richardson is three quarters Mexican, but only one quarter "Anglo". This time around, the one-drop rule doesn't apply so Richardson wins.
The way out for the GOP is to stop enabling far-left concepts about race and multiculturalism by portraying those like Cruz or Marco Rubio as representative of all or most Hispanics. The way out is for them to undercut those like Richardson, not end up buttressing their Hispanic-centrism.
See Bill Richardson for extensive background information on him, including one important issue you'll hear from no one else.UPDATE: Richardson is trying and failing to back away from his remarks (link):

“That was a misunderstanding,” Richardson told Smith. “I said he shouldn’t be defined as a Hispanic. I’m a Hispanic. I don’t define myself as just Hispanic.”
He said his comments were “misinterpreted.”...
“We disagree on immigration but all I was saying was I don’t consider myself just a Hispanic and he shouldn’t be defined as just a Hispanic,” said Richardson. “We’re other things, that’s what I said.”

Watch the video, and see his name's link above: he said what he thought before and now he's trying in vain to back away from it.

The National Council of La Raza has sent an open letter [1] to senators Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell urging them to pass the anti-American DREAM Act. That bill would let the illegal aliens covered by it take college resources from Americans: it would deprive some Americans of college educations. And, the NCLR's letter is misleading and signed by a small grab bag of very questionable people.
It starts:

As Latino leaders in government, business, entertainment, and sports, we urge members of Congress to support the "Development, Relief, and Education of Alien Minors (DREAM) Act." This modest and sensible piece of legislation would allow young people who were brought to the United States by their parents at a very young age to pursue higher education or serve in the military.

1. The DREAM Act ("DA") is a power grab by various forces: the Democratic leadership, religious leaders, the far-left, and so on. The NCLR letter makes clear that to a great extent it's a race-based power grab. Those signing on don't care about American citizens not being able to attend college; obtaining race-based power is a much higher priority.
2. The DA is hardly a "modest and sensible piece of legislation". It could cover one to two million illegal aliens, and those covered could eventually sponsor other family members. That would take many years, but it would happen. It would also encourage even more illegal immigration with others seeking to take part in a "DREAM Act 2". Passing one amnesty would give even more power to those who'd push for yet more amnesties in the future. So, it's hardly "modest".
3. There's no requirement that those covered would have had to have been brought here by their parents; some older children cross on their own. They have to have arrived here before they were sixteen, which is hardly "a very young age".
Then, the NCLR misleads about who'd be covered:

These students are success stories in their communities, serving as student body presidents, star athletes, and performers, graduating often with honors from schools in their hometowns.

Certainly, some are as described. However, the educational requirements in the bills are minimal; there are no requirements that those covered must have graduated with honors or anything similar.
They also reference a recent UCLA study (#9 here) and a CBO study; see those links for more information.
In addition to a few minor celebrities, those signing on include (see each link for more on them):
* Janet Murguia of the NCLR
* Antonio Villaraigosa (former leader of a racial separatist group)
* Linda Chavez (sits or sat on boards of two large companies that employ large numbers of low-wage workers)
* Carlos Gutierrez (George W Bush Commerce Secretary who promoted amnesty while in office; see his name's link for much more)
* Lionel Sosa (wanted to and may have taken money from the Mexican government to promote amnesty inside the U.S.)
* Henry Cisneros (see the other letter he signed on to at the link)
* Maria Contreras-Sweet (affiliated with Promerica Bank)
* America Ferrera
* Monica Lozano
* Federico Pena
* Bill Richardson
* Solomon D. Trujillo (U.S.-born business executive who led an Australian company but who left that country in disgrace)
[1] huffingtonpost.com/
janet-murguia/latino-leaders-urge-the-u_b_797766.html

New Mexico gave out over 1000 driver's licenses to illegal aliens, others with bogus documents; Arizona no longer trusts NM licenseshttp://24ahead.com/new-mexico-gave-out-over-1000-drivers-licenses-illegal-alien2009-06-14T01:37:58-07:002009-06-14T02:10:58-07:00admin

In 2003, New Mexico governor Bill Richardson signed a law that allowed that state to give drivers licenses to illegal aliens, and when he was running for president he continued to support the bill. And, since that time over one thousand probable illegal aliens have gotten licenses from that state using bogus documents. See the video report here, complete with examples of the documents. New Mexico's licenses are considered so compromised that the state of Arizona no longer considers them a reliable form of ID.

"Let me say unequivocally that I and my Administration have acted properly in all matters and that this investigation will bear out that fact... But I have concluded that the ongoing investigation also would have forced an untenable delay in the confirmation process... I appreciate the confidence President-elect Obama has shown in me, and value our friendship and working partnership. I told him that I am eager to serve in the future in any way he deems useful. And like all Americans, I pray for his success and the success of our beloved country."

"we must move quickly to fill the void left by Governor Richardson's decision."

Apparently Blagogate filling the news cycles was bad enough and they decided it was better to dump him now. If Richardson had been confirmed, he would have helped make the Obama administration look bad, but at the same time he would also at least partly have represented the interests of the Mexican government. Overall this is for the best.

After a Spanish-language speech at the Democratic National Convention in Denver, Colorado on September 1, 2008, Bill Richardson spoke to various "reporters" and apparently said this:

Barack Obama is the best candidate for the Hispanic community because our community wants a united country. Obama is an immigrant. When he speaks to Latinos, he doesn’t just speak about immigration and civil rights...

Video to the right. I put this more in the "stupid things ethnic nationalist hacks say" category rather than the "shocking revelation that Obama isn't a citizen" category as others do. See some possible interpretations here.

WNET has an excerpt from the same or a different speech as well as an interview with a "reporter" here, but they don't include the "immigrant" part. In that interview, he predicts that Obama will win, and will do so by winning the Hispanic vote. The first part was right, the second wasn't. Their entry is dated August 29, so it might have been a different speech. He gave an outdoor speech on August 28 or before, with video from the Democratic National Convention itself here.

[After the announcement, Richardson] addressed a news conference in Chicago in English and in Spanish, saying Obama has a vision he thinks will revitalize the American economy and restore the country's position of respect around the world.

In addition, Richardson said, "It will be a great honor to serve a president that recognizes America's diversity is its greatest strength."

Love that quota system:

Although Richardson becomes the first Latino appointed to the Cabinet now in formation, Obama suggested the New Mexico governor won't be the last Latino to have an important position in his administration...

He also suggested that Latino voters, who voted for him in large numbers in the general election, should not be disappointed with his decisions thus far.

"I've appointed about half of my Cabinet so far," Obama said. "When people look back and see the entire slate ... not only in terms of my Cabinet but in terms of White House staff, I think people are going to say this is one of the most diverse Cabinets and White House staffs of all time."

Yet, at the same time, Obama maintained that this isn't why any of those appointees are being named to their positions.

"There's no contradiction between diversity and excellence," Obama said. "I'm looking for the best people, first and foremost. It just so happens that Bill Richardson is one of those people."

UPDATE: Per this, here's at least part of what Richardson said in Spanish:

Like President-elect Obama told us 'si se puede' our vote has become our voice. The election has demonstrated our power and our unity. We have to keep fighting for our rights. At the same time, keep chasing the American dream for all... To the millions of inhabitants of Latin America and the Caribbean, we have to strengthen our ties and remember the importance of having a unified hemisphere.

The Barack Obama cabinet might include such Democratic Party titans as Al Gore, Arizona governor Janet Napolitano, former Iowa governor Tom Vilsack, Caroline Kennedy, Howard Dean, Bill Richardson, John Kerry, and many more truly titanic names. This link has a "transition flowchart", a PDF showing some potential picks and all of them are truly great figures who will help the Repu... er, I mean the Democrats. While this could all be a jolly joke, who knows since the head of the transition team is John Podesta and his think tank the Center for American Progress is as much a joke as the Harding Institute.

Billionairess Penny Pritzker might be at Commerce; the tip of the iceberg on her is here.

For the Department of Homeland Security, the possiblities are:
* Tim Roemer (affiliated with George Mason University, a nexus of "cosmotarianism" and support for illegal activity),
* Raymond Kelly and Bill Bratton, chiefs of police of NYC and L.A. respectively,
* James Lee Witt (Clinton-era head of FEMA)
* Richard Clarke

For the State Department, all of them are some variation of bad jokes: John Kerry, Chuck Hagel, Richard Holbrooke, Sam Nunn, and Colin Powell. The latter is listed under two additional possibilities.

As the Department of Justice, Janet Napolitano, Rep. Artur Davis, and Eric Holder are listed. Someone from the latter's law firm visited this site after I posted about the viral video attempt at that link.

Also, from the link:

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. might be the head of the Environmental Protection Agency; and Caroline Kennedy could be the ambassador to the United Nations. Kennedy Jr. might be the head of the Environmental Protection Agency; and Caroline Kennedy could be the ambassador to the United Nations. It's just an unofficial guide but a fun one to follow.

"Latinos" want to be named to positions in the Barack Obama administration. Actually, it appears they want a quota system. And, it's not really "Latinos" as a group, but the familiar far-left pressure groups such as the NCLR, MALDEF, and NALEO. The second has an indirect link to the Mexican government, and the last has a direct link.

Weeks before Barack Obama won the presidency, he met privately in Washington with his former Democratic rival, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, and Latino political leaders who had fervently backed her bid.

The cards were laid upon the table, according to one of the participants. The Hispanic leaders said they expected at least two Latinos to be named to an Obama Cabinet — meeting the standard set by President-elect Bill Clinton in 1992 — but preferred three. Of course, they also wanted sub-Cabinet-level posts.

Then, she says that Latinos pushed Obama over the top; I'll wait for a reliable source.

...Cecilia Munoz, vice president of National Council of La Raza, said, “It’s a foregone conclusion that we should be at the table for policy debates and in a position of authority, " because Hispanics are affected by major issues facing all voters. Latinos will be prominent in an Obama administration "just as we would be in any administration moving forward," she added.

The coalition will be collecting resumes to submit to Obama's transition team. "It behooves us to not just suggest that the administration hire Latinos. We need to also provide good candidates," said Peter Zamora of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund.

...[Raul Yzaguirre] said he and others addressed that issue frankly with Obama at their meeting several weeks ago. "We said, ‘Look, if you are going to see us as late-comers, that's not going to work. If you see us as partners from here on, we will have a good relationship.' And he said he welcomed our support," Yzaguirre said...

Ethnocentric Lionel Sosa working for John McCain (money from Mexican government?)http://24ahead.com/blog/archives/007831.html2008-07-16T10:00:47-07:002012-07-18T12:34:05-07:00admin

Lionel Sosa is an extremely ethnocentric GOP advertising consultant who worked on George W Bush's presidential campaigns. Last year, he crossed over and supported Bill Richardson because, as he said at the time, "Blood runs thicker than politics".

Sosa, the son of Mexican immigrants, said his San Antonio-based team is editing a five-minute video and a series of 30-second television spots featuring McCain. They're also taping testimonials from Hispanics who know McCain, including Frank Gamboa, his Mexican-American roommate at the Naval Academy.

[Casey Wian reports] Lobbying groups for the U.S. construction, agriculture and other industries with large illegal alien work forces are funding a series of pro-amnesty TV ads scheduled to air after this year's presidential conventions. And Mexican funding for the ad campaign is quote, "a very, very strong possibility", says the executive director of matt.org [Lionel Sosa], Mexicans and Americans thinking together. It is hoping to raise $100 million for the ad campaign.

A good question for townhalls or conference calls would be whether McCain's videomaker is also getting funding from the government of Mexico to push their agenda inside the U.S.

Bill Richardson: the border is more secure; partnerships with Mexicohttp://24ahead.com/blog/archives/007683.html2008-05-08T07:56:30-07:002008-11-17T00:52:27-08:00admin

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson said Wednesday that he has seen an improvement in security along the U.S.-Mexico border... Problems remain, but increased policing by state and federal authorities has significantly helped...

Part of John McCain's (previous?) tactic to get amnesty involved the border being declared to be secure, something that would probably be done by border state governors like Richardson.

If two "liberals" tell you that Wikipedia isn't biased towards the "liberal" side of things, doesn't that prove that it is biased, especially when the two "liberals" aren't exactly known for thinking things through?

OK, it's not proof, but it is a strong indicator, as Kevin Drum [1] approvingly directs our attention to the post from Eve Fairbanks [2] of the New Republic (also home to Jim Kirchik and Jason Zengerle). She discusses a subscriber-only National Review article (link) called "Liberal Web" which discusses liberal bias at WP, and says:

while I hadn't perceived anti-conservative bias on Wikipedia's political pages, I wanted to see if [John J. Miller] had picked up on something I didn't.

She then uses the fact that Miller only came up with two points to buttress her claim that there's no such bias. Obviously, she's engaging in a logical fallacy: just because Miller doesn't present more examples doesn't mean that there are no more examples and doesn't mean that better examples can't be found. And, in fact, many more can be found as I know from editing various WP pages from about 2004 to about 2007 when I basically gave up due to things such as perfectly reasonable, fact-based edits being constantly rolled back [3]. In fact, I even created a site with a few examples at wikipediabias.com; note that there are many more that need to be added. Not all of the bias is of the "liberal" variety, such as that to be found at the Snopes entry.

And, it's perfectly understandable why there would be such bias due to the demographics of the web, which skews not just "liberal" and libertarian but also younger than the general population. Younger folks have more time to engage in editing wars, and those on the left side of things tend to be more activist than those on the right.

[1] washingtonmonthly. com/archives/individual/2008_04/013529.php
[2] blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/
2008/04/15/george-will-s-not-bitter.aspx
[3] I made a recent edit to the Bill Richardson entry, which was rolled back. I'm not going to get into a fight over it, but others might consider doing so: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bill_Richardson#controversies

SPLC's "The Year in Hate" misled about FBI hate crime statisticshttp://24ahead.com/blog/archives/007591.html2008-03-31T11:46:44-07:002013-07-02T12:05:27-07:00admin

The law center's report contends there is a link between anti-immigrant activism and the significant rise in hate crimes against Latinos in recent years. According to the latest FBI statistics, 819 people were victimized by anti-Latino hate crimes in 2006, compared with 595 in 2003.

However, on the same day as the SPLC's report was issued, the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) offered this press release:

When examined responsibly, the FBI hate crime data show a dramatically different story than the one the SPLC portrays. First, in order to suggest an artificially large increase in the raw number of hate crimes, the SPLC selects 2003 as its base year, one of lowest years on record for hate crimes against Hispanics. If one compares the number of hate crimes between 1995 (the earliest report available on the FBI's website) and 2006 (the most recent statistical year available), one would see that the number of hate crimes has increased only 17 percent... But even this is not the whole story. The SPLC conveniently forgets to index the raw hate crime data with the population, a step always taken by the FBI to more accurately depict an increase or decrease in crime. Thus, when one indexes a 17 percent increase in hate crimes against Hispanics with a 67 percent increase in the Hispanic population between 1995 and 2006, it becomes clear that the rate of hate crimes against Hispanics has in fact dropped dramatically -- by about 40 percent.

Charting the numbers over time - bearing in mind to compare apples with apples - is left as an exercise, but I'm willing to take FAIR's word for it.

Now, here's a partial list of those who've spread the SPLC's misinformation:

* Bill Richardson, in his endorsement of Barack Obama ("I have been troubled by the demonization of immigrants--specifically Hispanics-- by too many in this country. Hate crimes against Hispanics are rising as a direct result...", link)

* Bruce Tomaso of the Dallas Morning News offers "Study finds hate groups on the rise, fueled by anti-immigrant sentiments" (link), but provides this commendable note: "A word of caution: The Southern Poverty Law Center has done courageous, important work over the years, but... [t]he center is sometimes accused of inflating the numbers in its studies of hate groups and hate crimes... to justify its own fight against those forces."

* An unknown writer from the publicly-funded VOA News offers "Report Links Anti-Immigrant Sentiment in the US to Rise in Hate Groups" (link)

* Unrelated to the current SPLC report, on 12/5/07, Amy Goodman hosted Mark Potok of the SPLC (link). Apparently based on preparation he'd given her, she made the now-familiar claim: "New FBI statistics suggest anti-Latino hate crimes have risen by almost 35% since 2003.". Potok also noted that, "Well, basically, it's an anecdotal report. The FBI statistics, like all hate crimes statistics, are extremely shaky. But the direction that things are going in is obvious."